Evaluation of Crystals’ Morphology on Detection Efficiency Using Modern Classification Criterion and Monte Carlo Method in Nuclear Medicine

Research Article
  • 3 Downloads

Abstract

Crystals used in medical imaging systems play a key role in obtaining images for the improvement of diagnoses in medicine. We investigated crystal material characteristics in detection efficiency, and a reliable definition of efficiency proposed for improving spatial resolution. In this study, bismuth germanate (BGO), lutetium oxyortho silicate, gadolinium silicate, and lutetium yttrium oxyortho silicate crystals have been evaluated to compare their special characteristics using Monte Carlo simulation. Additionally, a new criterion is introduced as scattering frequency at which the ratio of the number of Compton interaction to the minimum traversed distance of photons in crystal is suggested. This frequency is based on random numbers, Compton scattering, energy of γ-ray, geometry and material of crystal. The sensitivity of crystals as a function of crystal width at various incident angles of the photon is investigated. The simulated results have demonstrated that at a distinct width of crystal, the detection efficiency of the BGO crystal was more than that of other crystals in which the amount of scatter and random coincidences decreased. Crystal width at various applications, however, must be optimized with respect to the trade off among the signal-to-noise ratio, spatial and temporal resolutions, efficiency, and the untrue coincidences. Determining crystal width and material may be useful in collimator design to improve spatial resolution and efficiency.

Keywords

Materials modelling Crystal Compton scattering Detection efficiency Nuclear physics Monte Carlo simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Authors thank Ms. Sahar Ghavidel, Queen’s University for comments that greatly improved the manuscript. They are also immensely grateful to Ahmad Ansari for his financial support in foundation of Gerash University and Hospital as well as their equipments.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Ashoor M, Asgari A, Khorshidi A, Rezaei A (2015) Evaluation of Compton attenuation and photoelectric absorption coefficients by convolution of scattering and primary functions and counts ratio on energy spectra. Indian J Nucl Med 30(3):239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asgari A, Ashoor M, Sohrabpour M, Shokrani P, Rezaei A (2015) Evaluation of various energy windows at different radionuclides for scatter and attenuation correction in nuclear medicine. Ann Nucl Med 29:375–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Khorshidi A, Sadeghi M, Pazirandeh A, Tenreiro C, Kadi Y (2014) Radioanalytical prediction of radiative capture in 99Mo production via transmutation adiabatic resonance crossing by cyclotron. J Radioanal Nucl Chem 299:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Khorshidi A (2015) Exploration of adiabatic resonance crossing through neutron activator design for thermal and epithermal neutron formation in 99Mo production and BNCT applications. Cancer Biother Radiopharm 30:317–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Khorshidi A (2016) Gold nanoparticles production using reactor and cyclotron based methods in assessment of 196,198Au production yields by 197Au neutron absorption for therapeutic purposes. Mater Sci Eng, C 68:449–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tzanakos G, Monoyiou E, Alexandratou E (1998) A Monte Carlo study of LSO γ-ray detectors for PET. In: SPIE’s international symposium ‘Medical Imaging 1998’, San Diego, CA, 21–27 Feb 1998Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thompson CJ (1990) The effects of detector material and structure on pet spatial resolution and efficiency. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 37(2):718–724ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roney JM, Thompson CJ (1984) Detector identification with 4 BGO crystals on a dual PMT. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 31:1022–1027ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lecomte R, Schmitt D, Lamoureux G (1984) Geometry study of a high resolution pet detection system using small detectors. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 31(1):556–561ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Michel C, Eriksson L, Rothfuss H, Bendriem B (2006) Influence of crystal material on the performance of the HiRez 3D PET scanner: a Monte-Carlo study. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 4:2528–2531Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brasse D, Piqueras I, Guyonnet J-L (2004) Design of a small animal PET system with high detection efficiency. IEEE Nucl Sci Symp Conf Rec 4:2412–2416Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Poon JK, Dahlbom ML, Moses WW, Balakrishnan K, Wang W, Cherry SR, Badawi RD (2012) Optimal whole-body PET scanner configurations for different volumes of LSO scintillator: a simulation study. Phys Med Biol 57(13):4077–4094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakamori T, Kato T, Kataoka J, Miura T, Matsuda H, Sato K, Ishikawa Y, Yamamura K, Kawabata N, Ikeda H, Satoc G, Kamadad K (2012) Development of a gamma-ray imager using a large area monolithic 4 × 4 MPPC array for a future PET scanner. J Instrum 7(1):1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lewellen TK (2013) Recent developments in PET detector technology. Phys Med Biol 53:R287–R317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    El Fakhri G, Surti S, Trott CM, Scheuermann J, Karp JS (2011) Improvement in lesion detection with whole-body oncologic time-of-flight PET. J Nucl Med 52(3):347–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vandenbroucke A, Foudray AMK, Olcott PD, Levin CS (2011) Performance characterization of a new high resolution PET scintillation detector. Phys Med Biol 56(3):4135–4145Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Knoll GF (2010) Radiation detection and measurement, chap 2, 4th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saha GB (2013) Physics and radiobiology of nuclear medicine. Springer, New York, pp 203–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klein O, Nishina T (1929) Über die Streuung von Strahlung durch freie Elektronen nach der neuen relativistischen Quantendynamik von Dirac. Z Phys 52:853–868ADSCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khorshidi A, Ashoor M, Hosseini SH, Rajaee A (2012) Estimation of fan beam and parallel beam parameters in a wire mesh design. J Nucl Med Technol 40:37–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khorshidi A, Ashoor M, Hosseini SH, Rajaee A (2012) Evaluation of collimators’ response: round and hexagonal holes in parallel and fan beam. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 109:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Khorshidi A, Ashoor M (2014) Modulation transfer function assessment in parallel beam and fan beam collimators with square and cylindrical holes. Ann Nucl Med 28:363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nikolopoulos D, Kandarakis I, Tsantilas X, Valais I, Cavouras D, Louizi A (2006) Comparative study using Monte Carlo methods of the radiation detection efficiency of LSO, LuAP, GSO and YAP scintillators for use in positron emission imaging (PET). Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res A 569:350–354ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Khorshidi A (2017) Accelerator driven neutron source design via beryllium target and 208Pb moderator for boron neutron capture therapy in alternative treatment strategy by Monte Carlo method. J Cancer Res Ther 13:456–465Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Moslemi V, Ashoor A (2017) Design and performance evaluation of a new high energy parallel hole collimator for radioiodine imaging by gamma cameras: Monte Carlo simulation study. Ann Nucl Med 31(4):324–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The National Academy of Sciences, India 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiation Application Research SchoolNuclear Science and Technology Research InstituteTehranIran
  2. 2.Cellular and Molecular Research CenterGerash University of Medical SciencesGerashIran

Personalised recommendations